lobbyTO

Development application · Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)

Development application 22 216036 ESC 20 OZ

27 Parkcrest Dr; 29 Parkcrest Dr

Status
Closed
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Submitted
12 October 2022
No appeal recorded
Linked lobbying registrations
3
Inferred links, published
Communications on linked registrations
8
3 meetings · 2 offices

Application record

Type
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)
Addresses
27 Parkcrest Dr; 29 Parkcrest Dr
Ward
Ward 20 · Parthi Kandavel
Submitted
12 October 2022
Status
Closed
Outcome recorded
Closed (outcome not recorded)
Decision date
Not recorded in the open data
Appealed
No appeal recorded
Size stated in the description
112 units; 11,837 m² gross floor area

Source: City of Toronto open data (Development Applications; Committee of Adjustment Applications). Dataset page · City application page

Description

REVISED PROPOSAL- The revised proposal which is the subject of the current resubmission consists of 112 townhouse units. Proposal to permit the comprehensive redevelopment of the subject site with five blocks of stacked, back to back townhouse dwelling units. The proposed townhouse blocks are oriented along a shared private driveway from Parkcrest Drive and a central linear outdoor amenity space and served by a single level underground parking garage. Residential gross floor area of 11,837.28 square metres, with 119 vehicle parking spaces (112 Residential Parking spaces, 7 Visitor Vehicle parking spaces.)

Linked lobbying registrations

These links are inferred by lobbyTO from file numbers and addresses named in the registration (task L2); the registry does not record which application a registration concerns.

Links between records are inferred by a model and are not reviewed by a person. Each link shows its score out of 1; moderate-confidence links (0.7 to 0.9) are wrong more often than high-confidence links. How links are scored

Lobbying on linked registrations

3 linked registrations · 8 communications · 3 meetings · 2 offices contacted

Offices contacted

Linked registrations
Data table· 3 rows
OfficeOffice holder typeCommunicationsMeetingsLast contact
Parthi KandavelMember of council519 July 2024
Gary CrawfordMember of council2211 July 2023
Parthi KandavelCouncillor staff1022 February 2024

Consultant firms

Linked registrations

Other registrations that mention this application's addresses

Text matches on the address only. They are not linked to this application unless listed above.

None.

Comparison with similar applications

Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 20

13 lobbied · 19 matched

Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.

Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide

571 lobbied · 760 matched

Approval rate

  • Lobbied100% n=78
  • Matched, unlobbied96% n=78

Refusal rate

  • Lobbied0%
  • Matched, unlobbied4%

Appeal rate

  • Lobbied12%
  • Matched, unlobbied14%
Data table· 4 rows
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 20: 13 lobbied and 19 matched unlobbied applications in 8 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied13Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Matched, unlobbied19Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide: 571 lobbied and 760 matched unlobbied applications in 344 matched strata
GroupnMedian daysApproval rateRefusal rateAppeal rateCouncil items
Lobbied571—100% (n=78)0%12%0.08
Matched, unlobbied760—96% (n=78)4%14%0.05

Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.

Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.

Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.